List PSA TicketFacts subjects in a category, returning each event's numeric subject_id for its full ticket reference page.
List PSA TicketFacts subjects in a category. Every event PSA TicketFacts lists for one category, each with the numeric subject_id to pass to psa-ticketfacts-subject for that event's full ticket reference page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_id | Yes | Category id, from psa-ticketfacts-categories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It openly states that the tool returns every event subject for a category and that each item includes a numeric subject_id for the next step. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple read-only listing this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the critical downstream chaining information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the scope of results, and the downstream use of the returned subject_id. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though a bit more response-shape or pagination detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; category_id is already documented in the schema as coming from psa-ticketfacts-categories. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating that it lists subjects in a category, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List PSA TicketFacts subjects in a category.' It also differentiates itself from the singular psa-ticketfacts-subject by explaining that this tool returns the numeric subject_id used for that downstream call. The scope is explicit: every event in one category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies a clear workflow: get category_id from psa-ticketfacts-categories, call this tool, then pass subject_id to psa-ticketfacts-subject. It names the downstream alternative, but does not explicitly say when not to use related gallery/category tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.